On June 29 2012 17:16 CoR wrote: so strange that usa is the ONLY western country without free healthcare , in europe there is 5€ or 10€ for medicin (no matter how much) and even kuba have 2cent for something that kost120€ in usa (medicine, the doc is free there aswell ... only amerca send you ill away if you have no money) i really dont get it
Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
Not to mention that when the penalty rises to a substantial amount by 2016 ($695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater), you might as well pay some more and have insurance in the meantime.
The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.
Not correct, I just did some research on the penalties for failure for some lit I was producing a few days ago.
By 2016, it's 2.5% of your personal income or $695, whichever is greater.
After that, it's 2.5% of your personal income or $$695+inflation, whichever is greater.
It's actually cheaper to pay the penalty than buy health insurance (as the CJ shrewdly noted in his opinion)
Your information is made up. If you actually read the Court's Ruling, you would have seen that the tax for not having health insurance goes like this: Pay $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is higher.
On June 29 2012 21:36 LaughingTulkas wrote: Disclaimer: I haven't read the thread, this is just my reaction.
The main issue for me here is that unprecedented expansion of the governments power.
Basically, the government now has the right to demand money from me (tax) when I don't do what they want me to do. Sure, right now it's healthcare, which is a good thing. I'm not mad about it being healthcare. But the precedent is now set that they can do this for whatever they see fit. There's nothing to stop them from demanding I pay them money if I don't by HoTS, or any other private product sold by a private company.
I'm not saying they will do this, but the power is now theirs to control, and with human nature being what it is, its more than likely it's only a matter of time before such power gets abused. These are the liberties we are giving up, and who knows when the price will need to be paid.
(I am all for having everyone have healthcare, especially those who want it but can't afford it, but there has to be a better solution than forcing under penalty of law those who don't want to buy it, especially at the cost of giving the government such control over our lives.)
Is everyone in the US so paranoid about government having some actual power? As I see it, one of the biggest problems the US are facing now is that they got blinded by capitalism too much which led to overgrowth of private sector and now they need to fix it by taking some of it back into public sector. I know that words like "socialism" scare the hell out of Americans but you need to understand that socialism=/=communism and some of it is actually good. Even if I were to take my own country as an example, where we have free healthcare and government-controlled pension system (if you work a % of your income is automatically added to your pension, the same with healthcare), which aren't perfect as there's constantly some problems with it, but they work. After all, if you make more money you can use it to get better healthcare by purchasing insurances from private companies, better pension by investing your money wisely etc. But the best example would be the schools. Most of the schools and universities in Poland are public, completely free and much better than private ones, which cost a lot. This is beneficial for the country as you get qualified workers who aren't in horrible debt at the start of their career.
Really guys, if you don't trust your own government, then why would it trust you? Put some faith in it and maybe things will start moving towards a better future. Democracy at its finest...
If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. I would humbly submit that governments throughout the entire history of man, including democracies, do not have a good track record of being trustworthy institutions. European countries are really not ones to talk either, I'm sure the Greek people put their faith in their government to provide for them, and certainly gave them the power to do it, but right now I think everyone agrees no matter what happens, the Greek people are screwed.
This is such crap. People are not trustworthy, not just governments. In place of government having more power (which is how it is in most European countries), we have massive corporations that have a ton of power, and they do even less to help the people since they are not accountable to them.
And how did these mega-corporations get so big? + Show Spoiler +
THE GOVERNMENT
Look up the top 20 Fortune500 companies and see how many of them receive government subsidies. I completely agree with you that people are not trustworthy. Hell, if I had the power to force an entire nation to purchase something under threat of stealing their money from them anyway, I wouldn't trust myself either.
On June 29 2012 17:16 CoR wrote: so strange that usa is the ONLY western country without free healthcare , in europe there is 5€ or 10€ for medicin (no matter how much) and even kuba have 2cent for something that kost120€ in usa (medicine, the doc is free there aswell ... only amerca send you ill away if you have no money) i really dont get it
Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
Not to mention that when the penalty rises to a substantial amount by 2016 ($695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater), you might as well pay some more and have insurance in the meantime.
The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.
We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
On June 29 2012 18:00 Mafe wrote: [quote] Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
Not to mention that when the penalty rises to a substantial amount by 2016 ($695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater), you might as well pay some more and have insurance in the meantime.
The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.
Not correct, I just did some research on the penalties for failure for some lit I was producing a few days ago.
By 2016, it's 2.5% of your personal income or $695, whichever is greater.
After that, it's 2.5% of your personal income or $$695+inflation, whichever is greater.
It's actually cheaper to pay the penalty than buy health insurance (as the CJ shrewdly noted in his opinion)
It clearly says in the article that it is capped. Where are you getting the fact that it isn't capped?
So Penalty = min(max(0.025*I, B), C), where I is your income, B is some base amount (which may be a function of inflation) and C is the cap.
I was reading the actual law. I'm guessing this "cap" that you refer to is to be set by an agency at a future date?
edit: i'm less than 100% now that i went back to look at my research, i was researching the religious exemptions to providing abortion. I thought I read the actual penalty for the individual mandate, but i'm not able to find it in the 10 mins i'm willing to look for it to prove myself on an internet forum. Doesn't make it any easier when your proof doesn't provide legal citations >.< lazy lawyers piss me off.
On June 30 2012 00:46 carloselcoco wrote: Your information is made up. If you actually read the Court's Ruling, you would have seen that the tax for not having health insurance goes like this: Pay $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is higher.
Spare me, the 1% or $95 is just for 2014 (if you actually read the law). It increases until 2016 (i think), at which point it ties itself to inflation. Because the 1% is what was challenged in court, that is why the CJ would have discussed these numbers in his opinion (which I've read 3 times now).
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
Some Economists argue the money that goes to individual welfare would be better used in investments, which would generate more opportunities for people below the poverty line to rise above the poverty line in a sustainable manner. Therefore, your argument is frivolous since economics is mostly a social science (At least economics involving opportunity costs and utility is a social science, which your argument pertains to) and therefore its principles for the most part cannot be demonstrated one way or the other.
But if you do want to analyze the social scientific aspects of Economics, there are economic theories that conclude that all individuals operate in their own self interest in every decision they make. Its also generalized that society operating in their own self interests also maximizes economic efficiency. By this theory, when an individual donates to a charity they donate to the charity because the benefit they get (Usually from feeling good about themselves) outweighs the cost to them (However much money they donated). So if an individual for whatever reason would prefer to have the money than the good feelings of donating to someone, who are you to tell them they can't do that or to judge the type of person they are?
On June 30 2012 01:03 tryummm wrote: But if you do want to analyze the social scientific aspects of Economics, there are economic theories that conclude that all individuals operate in their own self interest in every decision they make. Its also generalized that society operating in their own self interests also maximizes economic efficiency. By this theory, when an individual donates to a charity they donate to the charity because the benefit they get (Usually from feeling good about themselves) outweighs the cost to them (However much money they donated). So if an individual for whatever reason would prefer to have the money than the good feelings of donating to someone, who are you to tell them they can't do that or to judge the type of person they are?
This can be disregarded if you change the point of focus to society instead of individuals. Society is not trying to "feel good"; society has no feelings. The actions undertaken by the group must hold the common interest, and while some economists say that this money should be invested, the question is, would it have been invested? And a quick remark : some economists say so, some disagreee, this argument is essentially worthless.
Altruism is also a debated concept, you might not realize it but it's not something "figured out". Just a though : how does the origin of an altruistic action modify its benefits? While any action necessarily finds its motives within the individual itself (way to go stating the obvious), such tendencies are inherent to the human species as a social animal. In short, individualism is new, and from an historical and sociological point of view, detrimental to our development and to the progress of civilizations.
A widespread idea states that a group is formed of individuals; but what if an individual is the chunk of a group?
Individualism is a plague that's giving the finger to thousands of years of human collaboration.
On June 29 2012 17:16 CoR wrote: so strange that usa is the ONLY western country without free healthcare , in europe there is 5€ or 10€ for medicin (no matter how much) and even kuba have 2cent for something that kost120€ in usa (medicine, the doc is free there aswell ... only amerca send you ill away if you have no money) i really dont get it
Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
Not to mention that when the penalty rises to a substantial amount by 2016 ($695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater), you might as well pay some more and have insurance in the meantime.
The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.
The relevant section on the penalty starts on page 2102 line 17 (actually it starts on page 321 line 12, but this is amended by the preceding page reference).
Now the penalty is stated on page 2103 line 9: it says:
[The penalty] shall be equal to the lesser of— [...] (A) the sum of the monthly penalty amounts determined under paragraph (2) [...] (B) an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage
So there you have it. I'm right again (ABC's right). It's capped by (B).
But wait, what about the max of some base amount and 2.5% of income that we keep hearing?
Well that's what determines the monthly penalty of (A) above and can be found under paragraph (2) (which is page 2103 line 21). It says:
For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the monthly penalty [...] is an amount equal to 1⁄12 of the greater of the following amounts: (A) FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT [...] (B) PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
It is actually what I said: penalty = min(max(percent of income, base amount), cap amount). The penalty cannot exceed "(B) an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage"
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
On June 30 2012 01:03 tryummm wrote: But if you do want to analyze the social scientific aspects of Economics, there are economic theories that conclude that all individuals operate in their own self interest in every decision they make. Its also generalized that society operating in their own self interests also maximizes economic efficiency. By this theory, when an individual donates to a charity they donate to the charity because the benefit they get (Usually from feeling good about themselves) outweighs the cost to them (However much money they donated). So if an individual for whatever reason would prefer to have the money than the good feelings of donating to someone, who are you to tell them they can't do that or to judge the type of person they are?
This can be disregarded if you change the point of focus to society instead of individuals. Society is not trying to "feel good"; society has no feelings. The actions undertaken by the group must hold the common interest, and while some economists say that this money should be invested, the question is, would it have been invested? And a quick remark : some economists say so, some disagreee, this argument is essentially worthless.
Altruism is also a debated concept, you might not realize it but it's not something "figured out". Just a though : how does the origin of an altruistic action modify its benefits? While any action necessarily finds its motives within the individual itself (way to go stating the obvious), such tendencies are inherent to the human species as a social animal. In short, individualism is new, and from an historical and sociological point of view, detrimental to our development and to the progress of civilizations.
A widespread idea states that a group is formed of individuals; but what if an individual is the chunk of a group?
Individualism is a plague that's giving the finger to thousands of years of human collaboration.
"common interest" or "common good" is still individual perspective. democracy shows us that this is clearly not universal.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
There's more to it than just a 1-2% tax to subsidize health insurance for the poor.
1) Requiring the healthy who can afford but don't want health insurance to buy it. 2) Regulating what plans health insurance companies can offer and how health insurance companies operate.
There's also the issue that 1-2% does not happen in a vacuum. Government is already nearly half the economy in the US so there should be plenty of room for the government to reduce spending on other programs to pay for the subsidy.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
Well, there's one reason we can all be absolutely certain of, and that is that the 1% - 2% tax will absolutely never be increased. Also, it's awesome that we all completely understand how income is defined and computed. Not to mention the other half of that 'greater of' value will never change either. One other thing, I just realized, I'm not positive, but I think adjusting these amounts may be considered 'budget reconciliation', making any such changes harder to prevent.
On June 30 2012 01:03 tryummm wrote: But if you do want to analyze the social scientific aspects of Economics, there are economic theories that conclude that all individuals operate in their own self interest in every decision they make. Its also generalized that society operating in their own self interests also maximizes economic efficiency. By this theory, when an individual donates to a charity they donate to the charity because the benefit they get (Usually from feeling good about themselves) outweighs the cost to them (However much money they donated). So if an individual for whatever reason would prefer to have the money than the good feelings of donating to someone, who are you to tell them they can't do that or to judge the type of person they are?
This can be disregarded if you change the point of focus to society instead of individuals. Society is not trying to "feel good"; society has no feelings. The actions undertaken by the group must hold the common interest, and while some economists say that this money should be invested, the question is, would it have been invested? And a quick remark : some economists say so, some disagreee, this argument is essentially worthless.
Altruism is also a debated concept, you might not realize it but it's not something "figured out". Just a though : how does the origin of an altruistic action modify its benefits? While any action necessarily finds its motives within the individual itself (way to go stating the obvious), such tendencies are inherent to the human species as a social animal. In short, individualism is new, and from an historical and sociological point of view, detrimental to our development and to the progress of civilizations.
A widespread idea states that a group is formed of individuals; but what if an individual is the chunk of a group?
Individualism is a plague that's giving the finger to thousands of years of human collaboration.
"common interest" or "common good" is still individual perspective. democracy shows us that this is clearly not universal.
Not at all, unless you live in a dictatorship. It is formed of a myriad of "I", but is formulated, crafted and processed as a "we" by many, many persons. Democracy does not exist de facto because 1) it would prevent any sort of evolution and 2) it does not promote excellence (if we follow a platonist view of society) and 3) its application is exponentially harder in correlation to the number of people involved..
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
There's more to it than just a 1-2% tax to subsidize health insurance for the poor.
1) Requiring the healthy who can afford but don't want health insurance to buy it. 2) Regulating what plans health insurance companies can offer and how health insurance companies operate.
There's also the issue that 1-2% does not happen in a vacuum. Government is already nearly half the economy in the US so there should be plenty of room for the government to reduce spending on other programs to pay for the subsidy.
Yes, there is more to it. Insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, medical device sales, and individuals who make more than 200k/year will be shouldering most of the burden. In exchange, millions of Americans get to see a doctor. I'm ok with this.
1) Everybody will require health care. Everybody will benefit from having insurance. Those who can already afford insurance will pay slightly more without seeing a direct benefit to themselves, but it will benefit millions of their fellow man. Have any numbers for how many people can afford health insurance, but choose not to have it? I'm guessing its pretty damn low.
2) Private insurance companies raise rates arbitrarily, spend large amounts of money on advertising and executive salaries, and in general are in a position to screw desperate people over to make more money. Nearly every industrial country in the world regulates medical insurance.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
EPT
